In each case the person(s) presented themselves as thoughtful and credible on matters that impact First Nations. Yet there seemed to be other agendas at play that weren’t acknowledged. Like the Wizard of Oz it appeared that we were being asked to “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.
The first person was a speaker at the October 18, 2021 RM of McKillop Council meeting. The speaker self-identified as Status Indian and claimed she was not offended by Council’s response to the Day of Truth and Reconciliation and in fact seemed to praise them. I respect that First Nations have a right to self-identify and a right to have diverse opinions. A google search finds that this person was a member of the RM 220 Ratepayers Association which was aligned with at least some members of Council. I believe that she should have self-identified this status as well, which may have helped us consider her opinion with a more balanced perspective.
The second was the RM Councilors’ apology that comments “may have detracted inadvertently from the essence of what is undoubtedly a very import day. There was no intent to diminish in any way the importance of efforts for and reflection about reconciliation”. To reach this decision, they literally kept their deliberations behind the curtain and when they emerged only peeked around the edge. The apology was heavily qualified and they accepted no responsibility for dodging accountability for weeks, including discrediting the LMT reporter, until the public pressure overwhelmed them.
The third was an article from the Fraser Institute authored by Tom Flannigan. He appears to be sympathetic to First Nations causes while in fact undermining them. Behind the curtain he was bashing the Federal Government for spending tax money to settle claims where Aboriginal access and use of their land had been denied for decades. A google search discovers; he has long fought against Land Claims so any expenditure would likely be too much, he is a disgraced academic, and a political operative whose views led his own people to walk away. Self-proclaiming this would have provided a more honest picture of his views. Given the forum and aura of respectability the Fraser Institute provided this individual, can they honestly claim to be non-partisan?
The fourth was the Letter from Peter Foster. This is a bit unique as Peter should be commended for submitting a follow up letter to provide some personal background. I am prepared to believe he intends to be sincere. However I think he needs to pull back the curtain on himself. Jokes and wit is not the same thing. Recycling stereotypes doesn’t demonstrate insight. Personal insults aimed at any politician, including the Prime Minister, doesn’t demonstrate keen political analysis. Before crying foul for being treated like a duck make sure you aren’t quacking, and should you find that you are change your tune.
It is understandable that people want to put their best foot forward. However when they are trying to sway the public to their thinking they need to let us see if there may be holes in their socks. In order to be fully informed we can and should use the tools available to us such as google searches. On the other hand we should be able to expect such people to openly declare any biases or affiliations. In this way we can better evaluate the weight of their opinion and the amount of influence we should accept.
In the spirit of following my own advice I make the following declarations; both sets of my grandparents were settlers, I worked in the fields of child welfare and youth and Adult Corrections where I observed firsthand the destructiveness of the Indian Residential/Industrial Schools across generations, I have been an elected official in a local community.
- Ken Cameron
- Idea’s and opinions expressed here are those of the author. Published as-is.
